listfandomcom-20200216-history
User talk:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines
Request for suggestions? The goal here is to remove everything that is subjective from WP:N, i.e. we eliminate all of the words determined subjective per User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not except for reliable (I think there is a level of common sense objectivity regarding "reliable") and re-write it as something that is a start at coming up with an entirely objective standard of inclusion. Suggestions are welcome below, but I want to come up with something that is based on other guidelines and policies that removes the subjectivity of "notability", yet at the same time actually accomplishes what really would be a reasonable compromise between inclusionists and deletionists. Also, I want to avoid something that is needlessly convoluted and confusing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :I think paper encyclopedias have 'stub' class articles, so don't think it should have anything to do with article inclusion criteria. (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) * Hi! -- I like the concept of notability as it stands at the moment, I'm afraid. It is subjective in that it allows some room for discussion on what it means with regard to particular cases, and I think that's a good thing. Sorry.--[[User:S Marshall|'S Marshall']] Talk/ 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :I don't think that "subjectivity" is actually your core objection. Your proposed guideline is more of an effort to be extremely inclusive, and describing it as a compromise between inclusionists and deletionists is misleading at best. How about a nice direct statement: ::For a subject to be included as an article, it must be covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable independent sources that do not constitute local coverage or a directory listing. :::*Independent specifically excludes all sources created by licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the subject, or, in the case of a fictional topic, created by, licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the publishers, creators, authors, or illustrators of the subject.'' :::*Multiple'' specifically excludes the numbers zero and one.'' :::*Local'' means coverage which is restricted to a relatively small geographic area, such as a city, county, borough, or university.'' :::*Directory listing'' specifically excludes restaurant listings, censuses, atlases, and television guides.'' ::That's a fairly objective test, and is far more effective at excluding undesirable content than yours.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) * There are a few things to like here. We drop the vague terminology of "notability", and focus more on research. And we replace the "significance" requirement with a pretty decent standard: if you can't write more than a stub worth, then it should probably be merged or redirected. But I strongly disagree with shifting towards mere reliability of the sources. There has to be some mention of words like "independent" and "secondary" sources, not just reliable sources, in order to be consistent with WP:OR and WP:V. I also think that independence of reliable sources tends to help us avoid content taht would violate what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, as well as WP:NPOV from a non-independent perspective. Independence is a bare minimum requirement, and that's a consensus that's cemented in a lot of our policies. Randomran (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) *I like Kww's direct statement, apart from "independence", which is too much creep. The problem is that people see notability as an absolute defence to the point that it's hard to get actually problematic material off the encyclopedia. Of course, it should stay a guideline; there will be a few cases where we should bend the rules. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)